Electroliner 1935 wanswheel Federal project approvals and funding should come quickly enough for the project to break ground in 2009, he urged. The ]Federal wheels move slower than a late Amtrak train. 2009 was six years ago.
wanswheel Federal project approvals and funding should come quickly enough for the project to break ground in 2009, he urged.
NY Post jumps in on need for new tunnels
http://nypost.com/2015/07/18/new-york-new-jersey-on-the-brink-of-tunnel-mageddon/
If ony one tunnel exists, how much capacity could be realilized by running multiple trains coupled together in one direction for say fifty minutes, then reversing the flow for fifty minutes with ten minutes to clear the tunnel. This would be like eight 60 car trains (made of five twelve car trains) running on four minute headways through the tunnel, then being separated and continuing to various destinations. Something like batch processing. How you load and build a sixty car train, I don't know but if S..T happens and one tube has to be closed, thinking outside the box will be needed. If they can run mile long freight trains, how about long passenger trains. Some way to maximize throughput. Your thoughts please.
It takes time to combine passenger cars. How much more time would it take to combine trains, if it could even be done?. How about mixes of loco hauled trains and EMUs ? Even if trains could be hooked together in 5 minutes, the first train in line would have waited a half hour until the sixth train is hooked up and ready to move again.
So come up with other ideas on how to increase throughput.
A similar idea is fleeting trains, but that doesn't work because Penn Station would fill up with NJT trains that don't use Sunnyside during rush hour that cannot escape back to MMC and other layover locations. The system is currently nearly at capacity, and operating under its most efficient operating plan. If one of the tunnels goes down, some trains simply will not fit.
Electroliner 1935 If ony one tunnel exists, how much capacity could be realilized by running multiple trains coupled together in one direction for say fifty minutes, then reversing the flow for fifty minutes with ten minutes to clear the tunnel. This would be like eight 60 car trains (made of five twelve car trains) running on four minute headways through the tunnel, then being separated and continuing to various destinations. Something like batch processing ... Your thoughts please.
If ony one tunnel exists, how much capacity could be realilized by running multiple trains coupled together in one direction for say fifty minutes, then reversing the flow for fifty minutes with ten minutes to clear the tunnel. This would be like eight 60 car trains (made of five twelve car trains) running on four minute headways through the tunnel, then being separated and continuing to various destinations. Something like batch processing ... Your thoughts please.
The critical problem as I see it is that many of these modern trains don't have full 'automatic' couplers like the transit stock in the '60s, with all the electrical and pneumatic connections integral in the connection. In particular, I think, modern HEP requires that the cabling be pulled out discretely and carefully by hand after having been 'blue-flag' locked/tagged out electrically -- and that alone shoots the idea dead before it gets too far.
The intermediate stage of fleeting proposed, though, is interesting. Theoretically a '60-car' train is short enough that you could have ready platforms for each 'chunk' of a train that length in parallel, arrange for crews for each segment to 'take over' promptly and direct it to its track (a bit like a glorified hump yard with people on each car) and then enough time between trains to allow the first platform to reasonably clear of arriving passengers before the next train comes in.
The 'catch' is that you really won't have 'four minute headway' in the tunnel very long, as it will take more than four minutes for the individual segments to be progressively separated, brake- and control-tested, the switches to be lined for the route, and the segments in the aggregate directed to their destination tracks.
I had thought of using a version of CBTC to run the 'fleeted' trains nose-to-tail under constant individual control through the tunnel, then just bang the coupler open at some point and accelerate the leading segment in positive separation just enough to get the switches to line and then return. I trust you see the problem inherent in this approach. Folks will get killed or hurt, and even one little 'problem' ties up the whole schmear for a protracted time, until the next time, and the next time, and the next time. If you thought 'flying switch' was a bad operational proposition, imagine institutionalizing it at high speed.
IIRC there was a provision in ARC for two trains to run nose-to-tail in the longer 'stub' platforms to increase effective throughput. By the time you have platforms effectively the width of Manhattan you're going to start having to define 'east side' vs. 'west side' trains, and then figuring out how to shuffle pax around when one segment gets out of place in the queue of arriving trains...
Electroliner 1935 So come up with other ideas on how to increase throughput.
Build the new tunnels.
Another editorial. Why hasn't some of the conservative paper and media not come out with counter editorials ?
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/christies_delusional_attack_on_amtrak_editorial.html
blue streak 1Another editorial. Why hasn't some of the conservative paper and media not come out with counter editorials ? http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/christies_delusional_attack_on_amtrak_editorial.html
Much more fun to read some of the 'comments below.' (Get past the first few that are the usual wiseguy stuff... )
I quote one in its entirety as both a start and an example, by a commenter with username "trainman":
"Many still feel that Governor Chris Christie sunk ARC, because of his announced fears that the state would have to bear the burden of cost overruns. That's true as far as it goes; however many writers, columnists and editorialists still harbor the misbegotten illusion that both ideology and political maneuvering were the principal basis of his dismissal of this undertaking. While an uninvolved individual could be expected arrive at that conclusion, there was far more to it. Here's the rest of the story:
"When Governor Christie sunk ARC in late October 2010, NJT's final New York City configuration was a "deep cavern," three track over three track stub end terminal below Manhattan's 34th Street solely for its own usage. Three key deficiencies argued for a revision in the project's conceptual goals: 1.) it prohibited Amtrak access to the tunnels and its own Penn Station platforms; 2.) it eliminated all redundancy between old and new tunnel bores for both Amtrak and NJT in the event (as now seems the case, thanks to Super Storm Sandy) one of the 1910 legacy tunnels had to removed from service for repair and rehabilitation and 3.) it blocked any track extension (originally a key element in ARC) from Penn Station to, or in the vicinity of, Grand Central Terminal. Major changes to ARC occurred in November 2000 when the MTA withdrew from participation, and then later when the Port Authority withdrew as the lead agency. That role was assumed by New Jersey Transit under the McGreevy administration which began to repurpose ARC to serve its sole needs to the detriment of Amtrak. The unfortunate, unnecessary and unwarranted changes to ARC instituted by NJT management in June 2007 lowered the tunnel tracks sufficiently such that redundancy between the old and new tunnels became impossible. The effect of this meant that Amtrak trains could not use the new tubes and still access its platforms at New York Penn Station, nor could NJT use the existing 1910 era bores and reach the proposed subterranean 34th Street "deep cavern" tracks. Exclusion of Amtrak led to an April 28, 2008 letter from then Amtrak President Alex Kummant to NJT's project manager Tom Schulze indicating that if this modification was made permanent, Amtrak would be forced to construct its own fifth and possibly sixth bores to serve its projected service expansion in the Northeast Corridor in the mid-twenty first century.
"In April 2010, unbeknowingst to transit advocates at the time, Governor Christie instituted an internal study group composed of key stakeholders to evaluate the ARC project and subsequently the decision to cancel was announced over the Labor Day weekend in September 2010. While media postmortems were focused almost exclusively on cost overruns suggesting that the impetus for cancellation was purely financial (which had they occurred would have had to have been absorbed in their entirety by New Jersey taxpayers), there was another side to it: the engineering mismanangement by NJT which was best epitomized by Christie's wife, Mary Pat, who was widely quoted as saying that the trans-Hudson ARC tunnel terminated in a deep cavern in "Macy's basement." Despite (or because of?) Transportation Ray LaHood's forceful efforts to change Christie's mind, the final nail in the coffin was driven in late October 2010 when ARC was permanently deep sixed for good. (Subsequently, then NJDOT Commissioner Simpson, in a meeting with transportation advocates and professionals a year later, commented that personally he wanted the tunnels to be extended from New York Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal, the keystone of ARC at its inception in the mid-1990s, all along. Of course, he was mum publicly during ARC's pendency.)
"After the Governor's termination, Amtrak announced in February 2011 its own version of ARC called the "Gateway Project" which is designed to address and remedy upon completion the three ARC shortcomings and will also provide a new Portal Bridge allowing for a full four tracks (only two currently) between Newark and New York Penn Station. Sadly, since this anouncement, not much progress (read available funding) has occurred with the "Gateway Project," except for glossy press releases and web postings as has been pointed out by Transportation Secretary Foxx's recent public comments."
Wizlish: Thanks for the in depth review. Unable to follow ARC during the first part of the proposal. The no reduntdancy and ability for only NJT to use the tunnels and stub end is revealing.
As I posted it now seems even more likely for whatever reason Christie only used the cost over runs as the reason. IMHO maybe he was not ready to take on the establishment that had put so much political capital and time into building a very faulty design ? Could it have been that he foresaw that some of the problems you mentioned would cause attempts to fix the problems ? As well an only NJT project would drop all over runs onto NJ.
It may have been LaHood's insistence to build ARC as designed prevented Christie from just saying " lets go back to the drawing board." IMO he should have bitten the bullet and probably would have if he had known "Sandy" was coming. It is interesting that even after Sandy that he did not cashier any one at NJT until the Super Bowl fiasco.
Another article.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/07/8572527/transportation-secretary-calls-hudson-tunnel-inaction-almost-criminal
Another NY times today
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/nyregion/transportation-secretary-seeks-meeting-with-cuomo-and-christie-on-hudson-river-rail-tunnels.html?_r=0
Yet another article.
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2015/07/27/the-ghost-of-the-arc-tunnel-haunts-christie-as-candidate/
Foxx gets into the act!
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Foxx-seeks-meeting-with-Cuomo-Christie-to-discuss-Hudson-River-rail-tunnels--45234?email=drtrack@comcast.net&utm_medium=email&utm_source=prdailynews&utm_campaign=prdailynews07/29/2015
Anotheer article
http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/chris-christie-has-a-case-of-tunnel-vision-1.1381412?page=all
^all those articles are so much political posturing and hot air. If the hot air could be converted into electricity - the entire East Coast wouldn't need any power plants.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD ^all those articles are so much political posturing and hot air. If the hot air could be converted into electricity - the entire East Coast wouldn't need any power plants.
Two Amtrak reports of progress of Gateway. 1st part of Hudson yard box 96% complete.
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55196841e4b076742447c850/t/5553e513e4b00483b17a4493/1431561491984/AVitalLink_Amtrak.pdf
another
http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/Gateway_Amtrak%20Factsheet%20Spring%202015.pdf
NARP blog about the non building of Gateway tunnel.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/william-vantuono/guest-blog-build-the-new-tunnels-already.html?channel=
The Port Authority has just announced a $4 billion plan to rebuild the terminals at LaGuardia Airport. One aviation expert guesses that over-runs will double that cost. I can see the RR tunnels being put off again.
http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Analysts-skeptical-as-politicians-tout-LaGuardia-overhaul
Star Ledger new article and video about tunnel. Like the analogy about wasting down payment after not buying a house that is flawed.
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/08/the_source_of_your_commuter_hell_your_governors_cr.html
Moran comes across like a partisan hack. Aging of the infrastructure was very evident for years before the current Congress was elected.
Como says state can't pay for tunnels but he can build new auto bridge over Hudson and rebuild LGA terminal. Now nothing is going to prevent air passengers from flying from LGA terminal if it is not rebuilt but a north river tunnel failure ???
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/08/8573743/cuomo-outlook-new-rail-tunnel-not-especially-bright#
blue streak 1Como says state can't pay for tunnels but he can build new auto bridge over Hudson and rebuild LGA terminal. Now nothing is going to prevent air passengers from flying from LGA terminal if it is not rebuilt but a north river tunnel failure ??? http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/08/8573743/cuomo-outlook-new-rail-tunnel-not-especially-bright#
Read the actual letter, and the 'power plant heat' article earlier. Then look at the funding sources for the ARC tunnel (which actually was a NY-NJ project with little more than peripheral significance to Amtrak, perhaps by intent). I suspect part of the current 'impasse' -- perhaps a larger part than has been admitted -- involves the non-return of 'Federal' funds allocated for the NJ part of the ARC tunnel before Christie killed it.
A major part of the Gateway design is that it supports high-speed rail through the New York/New Jersey region, and a great part of New York State itself does not benefit from the project - less than from the Tappan Zee giving access to upstate, for example. That makes it harder for Cuomo to support the several billion dollars' worth of design and construction that suit the project for the purpose of high speed without subsidy from the Federal government. Christie has already mentioned including the Port Authority (with its toll revenues) as one of the financing bases to reduce the nominal state involvements.
In my opinion, ARC in its final form as the 'tunnel to Macy's basement' was a wrong answer to a question nobody really asked, even if it was by final intent directed at being a New York-New Jersey local project. My understanding is that Gateway will continue with through platforms from its tracks, albeit perhaps with some on a lower level, allowing more flexible service if needed and much better 'throughput' through the expensive new structure.
I suspect one method of 'apportioning' the cost might involve a percentage of NJT and, to a lesser extent, MN traffic using the capacity of the new tunnel and route instead of the old (probably higher-speed services) - this perhaps being in line with Weinman's recent blog point about AIRNet-21 paying for infrastructure cost and development independent of above-the-rail costing and resource allocations for actual train service.
Another part involves the probably-desirable taking of first one bore of the old North River Tunnels out of service to fully reline and rebuild it, followed by an equivalent time for the other, when Gateway is in full service. This, I understand, will involve no more than about a year per tunnel ... but the states attribute it either to Amtrak maintenance negligence or to the act-of-God Sandy inundation (which would involve insurance money for remediation and 'business interruption', not state subsidy or other tax money). On the other hand, expect most of the traffic through the remediated North River tunnels to be state transit agency trains.
erikem Moran comes across like a partisan hack. Aging of the infrastructure was very evident for years before the current Congress was elected.
Of course we can go back and lay blame on every Congress since, I don't know, the creation of Penn Central. But do yesterday's failures exempt today's "leaders" from stepping up and being responsible? Shouldn't. So the fact is still that the current Congress isn't doing much of anything about this situation.
But much of Moran's point was that Gov. Christie just cancelled ARC (whatever its merits or lack thereof) and did nothing to help the situation. That was grandstanding. Leadership would have been to say, ARC is not the right solution, we need to renegotiate, we need a real solution, not just going into Macy's basement.
I don't care about party affiliation, I don't even live anywhere near NY-NJ, but we need new tunnels NOW. Tunnels that connect to the network and will still be an asset 100 years from now.
Agree that we need to forget about the past for the most part. It is now and the future that planners need to plan for design of new tunnels tunnels.
There is a misconception that has crept in to these discussions. The present North River tunnels were jacked through the bottom sediment but as far as know not thru any of bedrock in the North river. Did go thru bedrock both under Palasaids and Manhatten The tunnels which are of iron construction actually move with the tides. That means constant bending of joints. How much will leave to others to inform us.
The new tunnels will be bored below the river bed thru bedrock. This will make them much more robust and not subject to the tides. However that may make the approachs to NYP steeper. That explains why the box tunnel is so deep we have seen in construction pictures. A concern is if the repairs are not started soon sections of the present tunnels might have to be replaced with new steel sections ?
EDIT; Here is a profile of the north river tunnels but note no indication that hudson is in silt.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/PCPOST_HudsonRiverTubes_Diagram.png
dn
Streak,
The North (Hudson) River tunnels were not laid in an excavated trench. They were excavated through shields jacked through the sedement. The tunnel's outer structural members are iron or steel rings about 18" long bolted together around the circumfrence of the tube. See Conquering Gotham by Jill Jones
Without skimming the whole book I can not find how deep bedrock is but it is MUCH deeper than the current tunnels which feature grades of about 2% in each direction. Elevation of Penn Station is fixed, so deeper tunnels all in rock will require much steeper grades, particularly on east end than is currently the case. West portal could be moved to the west, but again Penn Station is not going anywhere.
Mac
blue streak 1There is a misconception that has crept in to these discussions. The present North River tunnels are laid in a dredged trench in the North river. The tunnels which are of iron construction actually move with the tides. That means constant bending of joints. How much will leave to others to inform us. The new tunnels will be bored below the river bed. This will make them much more robust and not subject to the tides. A concern is if the repairs are not started soon sections of the present tunnels might have to be replaced with new steel sections ?
I think before this goes on much more, everyone should read this:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/42149/42149-h/42149-h.htm
and take careful notes of the detail. It solves your questions.
One point about the iron lining is that it is relatively immune to chloride corrosion compared to any of the usual structural steels. If there were a problem with tunnel sections 'working' with the tide, it could logically be solved with relatively simple ballasting over the top of the tube, constructing cofferdams with 'cells' to hold the heavy aggregate or other material in place laterally, or anchoring the tubes with stressed 'tendons' to underlying bedrock.
The major 'rock' portion of Gateway will involve traversing the Palisades, a volcanic dike for those who don't know the area, with the appropriate lateral and vertical curves for whatever level of high speed is expected. I personally expect a fairly sharp grade on the Manhattan side (to assist braking coming eastbound and acceleration going westbound) but full high-speed vertical curve magnitude and transition perhaps as early as departure from the riverbed area on the New Jersey side.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.